This post has
67
Replies |
3
Followers

However, there are also books out there that show how to do a topical study outside of a book study. I tend to not favor this type too much, as I find it more deductive than inductive.

Cynthia in Florida, excuse the logician in me for butting in, especially since I've long since figured out "inductive" doesn't mean "inductive" in this context but deductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is true. Inductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is probably but not necessarily true. So love your inductive but don't knock my deductive, please

And if anyone can tell me the historical reason that for a subset of Christians "deductive" came to mean starting with facts outside the Bible and "inductive" was taken to mean starting with facts inside the Bible, I would love to hear it because the term "inductive Bible study" drives me nuts.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

However, there are also books out there that show how to do a topical study outside of a book study. I tend to not favor this type too much, as I find it more deductive than inductive.

Cynthia in Florida, excuse the logician in me for butting in, especially since I've long since figured out "inductive" doesn't mean "inductive" in this context but deductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is true. Inductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is probably but not necessarily true. So love your inductive but don't knock my deductive, please

And if anyone can tell me the historical reason that for a subset of Christians "deductive" came to mean starting with facts outside the Bible and "inductive" was taken to mean starting with facts inside the Bible, I would love to hear it because the term "inductive Bible study" drives me nuts.

I'll probably get in trouble with MJ, and serious trouble with Cynthia. But 'facts inside the Bible' ... I can't think of a single one, outside mention of geo-places, phys-objects, and historical humans. It's a construct. Even the early fathers saw that.

However, there are also books out there that show how to do a topical study outside of a book study. I tend to not favor this type too much, as I find it more deductive than inductive.

Cynthia in Florida, excuse the logician in me for butting in, especially since I've long since figured out "inductive" doesn't mean "inductive" in this context but deductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is true. Inductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is probably but not necessarily true. So love your inductive but don't knock my deductive, please

And if anyone can tell me the historical reason that for a subset of Christians "deductive" came to mean starting with facts outside the Bible and "inductive" was taken to mean starting with facts inside the Bible, I would love to hear it because the term "inductive Bible study" drives me nuts.

MJ: I wasn't knocking the deductive method. I was speaking about an inductive topical study WITHIN an inductive book study, and I stated that I noticed that often, what is alleged as an inductive topical study within the context of an inductive book study is often not inductive but deductive, which I don't particularly like.

However, there are also books out there that show how to do a topical study outside of a book study. I tend to not favor this type too much, as I find it more deductive than inductive.

Cynthia in Florida, excuse the logician in me for butting in, especially since I've long since figured out "inductive" doesn't mean "inductive" in this context but deductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is true. Inductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is probably but not necessarily true. So love your inductive but don't knock my deductive, please

And if anyone can tell me the historical reason that for a subset of Christians "deductive" came to mean starting with facts outside the Bible and "inductive" was taken to mean starting with facts inside the Bible, I would love to hear it because the term "inductive Bible study" drives me nuts.

I'll probably get in trouble with MJ, and serious trouble with Cynthia. But 'facts inside the Bible' ... I can't think of a single one, outside mention of geo-places, phys-objects, and historical humans. It's a construct. Even the early fathers saw that.

Denise: Naahhhh...I'm stupid, but not so stupid as to get into a discussion with you over this. You'd chew me up and spit me out in three seconds flat! LOL

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

and a related one to the above:

Psalms 116:11 I said in my alarm,All mankind are liars.

If one teaches lies without malicious intent will one be free of charges? How about negligence for not having used due diligence in finding the truth.

Then back at what prompted the recent posts:

I understood "Deductive" meant from the General to the particular, and "Inductive" from the particular to the general.

So for example: inductively I notice in the Bible facts:

No one was baptized in the Bible as per Matthew 28:19;

There are no parallel passages for that formula.

The language used there is of liturgical style, not used ever by Jesus, and

Peter uttered another formula in Acts 2:38, and we know he would not disobey the Master Jesus, and the other Apostles did not raise an objection to the prescribed formula by Peter.

So the inference is that the long formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious. Inductive study unequivocally takes you to that conclusion.

Now deductively you may take the spurious formula as genuine (wrong presupposition), and try to impose it in the text, then you run in all kind of inconsistencies that you try to explain by ridiculous eiseized explanations.

Deductively you should accept the formula that jibes with the internal evidence in the text. As the particulars validate the premise of the correct formula to be the one prescribed by Peter under the Holy Spirit.

False doctrines will not go un judged in the end. And you cannot say that you just believed what a group or authority figure told you to be right and you did not check on your own.

Different angle for further research, reflection and action, not to polemicize.

I'll probably get in trouble with MJ, and serious trouble with Cynthia. But 'facts inside the Bible' .

You get in (real) trouble with me?? "Facts" in the context of logic are simply the agreed upon starting point of the logical exploration. i.e. statements that serve as/in propositions that are agreed to be true. I was staying out of epistemology and metaphysics here. Of course, I am influenced by the not-entirely-convincing argument that we cannot determine whether we are "real" or a "computer simulation".

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Deductively you should accept the formula that jibes with the internal evidence in the text.

Only to the extent that you have established the reliability, literalness, and univocality of the text????? Not wanting to enter into a discussion with you, simply pointing out that again you are presenting theological opinion as fact ...

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Then we go to external evidence. The long formula is only found in Justin Martyr and in the Didache (according to people that study this), and extrabiblical evidence does not make any one doctrine binding.

Then you have the supposedly testimony of Eusebius saying that Atanasious was modifying the Scripture (coincidence that it was when they were battling the Arian heresy?).

Then you have the external evidence of the Hebrew Matthew: supposedly the original gospel, and in which is clearly written: "in my name" (which by the way is the style Jesus would use, and not the liturgical way).

Then we have the witness of the Catholic Church you love so much: in the records we see people being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, until certain time period (you can guess which from the Eusebius note above), in which it was changed to the long formula without a reason given.

Any one that wants to get to the truth of the matter just has to submit to the Holy Spirit, and use the fit aid of reasoning (both inductive and deductive).

An attitude of honoring God's truth should be above any allegiance to traditions, and man made constructs, precisely because God is the One that saves, and not any church.

Should we heed the warning of Christ?

Matthew 24:9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake.

Note Jesus said that true sheep would be disliked because of allegiance to His name.

Who is the Savior? who died for us?

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Peter knew that and accordingly under the Holy Spirit uttered Acts 2:38.

Simple and direct prerequisite to enter the New Covenant.

John 10:2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.

What is the theological implication of the passage above? We are to listen to the good Shepherd not to strangers with man made theological constructs.

Living Torah is Jesus Christ, not any group of persons on Earth. Jesus was tested that way: was He to submit to His Father or to a religious tradition of His time (far from God and the weightier matters of the Law)?

Are we not to be Christlike? if so, we may be facing the same challenge, is our heart for God and His prescribed way for entering the New Covenant Acts 2:38, or are we to follow a man made construct (spurious long formula) that in real life is pushing an occult ungodly agenda?

Rationality is a gift given to us by God, it is a fit aid to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Truth is not hard to find if we submit to God and His Holy Spirit.

But an attitude of true inductive and detached from previous understandings is needed to let the Scriptures talk to us. Internal and external evidence cannot be denied. As we say in our country: "You cannot shield the sun with the thumb" meaning faulty inductive and deductive reasoning cannot be used to support a bogus doctrine based on a spurious text.

God's truth is shining brighter than the sun with all the internal and external evidence available to us.

Hamilton, in our neck of the woods, we're all stupid, but never uninformed (an insult). In the grand pecking order of life, introducing someone to the joys of the Diety is at the top ... what Cynthia excels at.

As regards tagging, I combine tagging (every single volume) with altering the titles to achieve sorts I prefer. FL, however, is now disregarding user titles (web/mobile) and I've been disregarding FL.

However, there are also books out there that show how to do a topical study outside of a book study. I tend to not favor this type too much, as I find it more deductive than inductive.

Cynthia in Florida, excuse the logician in me for butting in, especially since I've long since figured out "inductive" doesn't mean "inductive" in this context but deductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is true. Inductive logic is where we know that if the statements we start with are true, then our conclusion is probably but not necessarily true. So love your inductive but don't knock my deductive, please

And if anyone can tell me the historical reason that for a subset of Christians "deductive" came to mean starting with facts outside the Bible and "inductive" was taken to mean starting with facts inside the Bible, I would love to hear it because the term "inductive Bible study" drives me nuts.

In mathematics (my secular training) inductive does not mean that something is probably, but not necessarily true. It means that you show that (1) the proposition is true for some number and (2) demonstrate that if it is true for a variable n, then it is also true for n+1. So you start from the specific example and then show that the example implies the whole.

I think the terminology "inductive Bible study" may come from that sense, where you begin with a specific example and see if that principle carries over to other texts (working up), while deductive begins with axioms (whether the categories of systematics, creeds or whatever) and then work down. In real life, of course, we always do both intermingled. Like in math, induction refers to a specific technique, but really depends on the insight of the other approach.

I have tagged all my books. I did much of the tagging before FL expanded their "types" on certain resources such as Systematic Theologies etc. I use an abbreviated list from the one that Bruce provided. I combine tags and ratings to create collections of books that I want to populate for various categories such as background and exegesis. The formula is: tag:exegesis AND rating >2... or whatever I decide. This allows me to filter to those resources I find most useful. I can still run a search on the tag to get all the books in that category if I want. I find it helpful to target my guides and search so as to not get overwhelmed. You can create similar collections using the "type" of resource provided by FL.

Another advantage to tagging all my resources is when new books arrive, especially those temporary ones with FL Connect, I can identify them because they are the ones not tagged. I do not tag any books that will be expiring the next month.

Whatever system you decide to use, you are well on your way to getting targeted results from your guides and searches.

This is a good point to mention. I too don't tag any temporary resources. I have done this in the past but regretted after I purchased it at at later time but forgot I had previously tagged the. Then I think that the resource didn't download when I check to see what resources have not been tagged. So I just make it my rule not to tag books that I don't own.

Another example of this is previously tagging resources as "cloud" when that was offered for a while but later they don't show up as untagged when I decided to purchase them.

Using adventure and community to challenge young people to continually say "yes" to God

I have tagged all my books. I did much of the tagging before FL expanded their "types" on certain resources such as Systematic Theologies etc. I use an abbreviated list from the one that Bruce provided. I combine tags and ratings to create collections of books that I want to populate for various categories such as background and exegesis. The formula is: tag:exegesis AND rating >2... or whatever I decide. This allows me to filter to those resources I find most useful. I can still run a search on the tag to get all the books in that category if I want. I find it helpful to target my guides and search so as to not get overwhelmed. You can create similar collections using the "type" of resource provided by FL.

Another advantage to tagging all my resources is when new books arrive, especially those temporary ones with FL Connect, I can identify them because they are the ones not tagged. I do not tag any books that will be expiring the next month.

Whatever system you decide to use, you are well on your way to getting targeted results from your guides and searches.

I truly respect your calling to teach God's Word... keep it up.

Hello John: First, thank you for your kind words. Secondly, I am incredibly interested in your system as mentioned above. It’s a little fuzzy for me, but I think I understand it. Any chance you could show me a few screen shots? I m particularly interested in it’s ability to “help target my guides and searches so as to not get overwhelmed...”.

Here is a post from 2016 that links to a pdf I created that describes the process. Mine system is more elaborate, but I think you will get the idea. If you have more questions I will be at a computer that has Logos on it later this evening and can post some screen shots using L8.

Once your have your monographs tagged and/or in collections, you then add those collections to a Passage Guide and Topic Guide so they can be utilized to provide you information from those collections based on your pericope or topic you are studying.